If money were speech, then the government forcing me to pay taxes would be a violation of the first amendment.
If money were speech, the government telling me not to give money to terrorists would be a violation of the first amendment.
The supreme court justices are idiots. Plain and simple.
To give just one flaw in your logic. Protesting is speech. If I work I can't protest. But I do get money for my work. If I were to pay someone to protest for me I would be using my money to exercise my right of free speech. So in that case money is speech.
The issue is in money inequality. If I'm paid $1,000 an hour than my money can buy more speech than the person who goes out and protests. If our society values every person's free speech equally then we need to find a way to deal with that inequality.
THAT is the issue and that's a lot more complicated issue.
Okay, what if I were to take several blog posts and put them together, have them published, and pay for the publishing myself. Is that speech?
What if I were to make a video and pay for the production myself and give it away on the Internet? Is that speech?
What if I took that same video and bought air time on the national networks? Is that speech?
My point is, while speech isn't money, speech and money are inseparable. It's impossible to regulate money in politics without infringing in some way on freedom of speech.
Money is speech because the fact that the government is forcing me to pay taxes is a violation of the first amendment.
Money is speech because the government telling me not to give money to terrorists is a violation of the first amendment.